Chapter 4: I Constantinople
The figure of Constantine is one that has possibly been glorified unduly in the history of the Church. He had long been spoken of in glowing terms as the "first Christian Emperor," converted in a miraculous fashion when he saw a cross of light appear in the heavens, bearing the inscription: "In this sign shalt thou conquer." The unrelenting study of the past hundred years, however, has set much of this aside. What remains is the picture of a man who was undoubtedly sincere in his acceptance of the Christian God and of Christ the Saviour. It has been questioned, however, just how much of a "Christian" he actually was beyond this. While his conversion may have been sincere, and while many of his official acts are stamped with Christian influence, it is possibly best to say that Constantine was "sincerely wrong." He never really grasped the fullness of Christianity, and that can mean only one thing: he was never a true Christian. No one can be a faithful disciple of Christ by accepting only half of what Christ and His Church teach.
Constantine may never have been a member of the Church at all; he postponed his baptism until the year 337, just shortly before he died. He took leave of this life in a devout enough fashion, pledging himself to the life of a baptized Christian, and begging God's mercy for his sins. But it was not a Catholic who baptized him, but an Arian - no less than Eusebius of Nicomedia himself; his faith may have been the same. Despite his interest in the Council of Nicea, there were other less Christian aspects of Constantine's life. Among them must be included the murder he arranged of his wife, Fausta, and of one of his own sons, Crispus.
The greatest difficulty, however, was derived from Constantine's concept of the "Christian" emperor. He looked upon himself as the defender of the faith, but the faith he would defend was quite dependent upon his mood and his current advisers. In this way it came about that some time after Nicea, Constantine changed and became the defender of the Arians. It was he who was responsible for expelling Athanasius from his diocese the first time.
In history, whenever the political power has come to the defense of Christianity by involving itself in the operation of the Church, it has almost always ended by doing more harm to the Church than good. This is surely the case in the post-Nicean era. Arianism was not only to remain a vital heretical movement, but it was to make great progress; and this progress was to be due in large measure to the patronage of the Roman emperors.
When the bishops signed the Creed at Nicea, there was outwardly a great unanimity. But the sincerity of some of the bishops is surely open to question. A number evidently signed more at the insistence of Hosius and the Emperor than because of personal conviction; this was especially true of the Arian bishops - Eusebius above all.
Even among the Catholics who accepted the teaching in its entirety there was not a wholehearted agreement that all was well. There were those who still felt that the definition of a doctrine in non-scriptural terms was not well advised. They tended to look upon it as an innovation, the result of the pressure of a "liberal" group of some sort, intent upon destroying the faith of Scripture rather than defending it. This hesitancy opened the road for vacillation, and it helps explain the lapse, later on, even of some of the more devout and orthodox bishops.
There were two particular problems associated with the use of the "new" word, homo-ousion; both the Arians and the scriptural-minded Catholics realized this. There was, first of all, the fact that it is a term obviously influenced by the West, and even at this date such a state of affairs was not looked upon happily by many Eastern bishops. Tertullian had apparently introduced the word consubstantialis into the Latin vocabulary about the beginning of the third century. The fact that the Greek translation of such a term did find its way into the Nicean Creed is not unimportant; the overwhelming majority of the bishops present had come from the East. This fact alone emphasizes the influence of the West as well as the extreme usefulness of the term. Apparently it was Hosius who was most influential in securing its adoption by the Council, and he came from Spain.
Nevertheless, the word was somewhat new to the East, even though Origen and his disciples had used it. While the meaning intended at Nicea was clear, the fact that it was something of an innovation continued to disturb some souls. Moreover, the problem was further complicated by the fact that the very same word had been used to indicate something different in other Greek writers. The most outstanding instance was that of Paul of Samosata. He had used the word homo-ousion to indicate the exact opposite teaching. For him, to say that the Father and the Son are homo-ousion did not mean that the two divine Persons possessed the same divine nature. As he used it, the word meant that the "Father" and "Son" are simply two different names for the one God - the one and only divine Person. With this meaning in mind, Paul of Samosata had taught that the "Father" and "Son" are homo-ousion - that is, they are entirely identical and are not distinct persons at all. As a result, the local synod of Antioch had condemned Paul of Samosata in 268 for teaching that the Father and Son are homo-ousion!
Such a state of affairs could not help but breed further confusion in the East, even after the Nicean Creed had been issued. The Arians used these arguments in order to promote their teaching; they probably did so in some instances with malice aforethought. But even the more orthodox believers were led into confusion. After all, they recognized that Paul of Samosata had been condemned for saying that the Father and the Son were homo-ousion, and yet Nicea had explicitly decreed that they are homo-ousion!
Added to these technical problems, there came the politically ambitious schemes of the emperors and a number of the bishops. Arianism was, for some, a steppingstone to power, and they were quick to make use of it. They valued power and position far above orthodoxy in faith. Among these, it would seem that Eusebius of Nicomedia would take first place. He was interested above all in "getting ahead." He was little concerned with doctrinal precision, and would gladly have settled for a more vague statement at Nicea. He apparently did sign the Nicean Creed simply to keep his position at the time.
Shortly after Nicea, Eusebius somehow managed to convey this impression to the Emperor Constantine and was promptly exiled. Constantine died, however, in 337 and the empire had to find a new ruler. There was no difficulty in getting men who were willing to assume the burden; quite the opposite, there were far too many claiming the right to do so. The three sons of Constantine eventually emerged triumphant. At first they divided the vast empire three ways, but when one of them - Constantine II - died three years later in a civil war with his brother, the authority rested with the remaining two: Constans and Constantius II.
The change in regime marked a new chapter in the history of the Councils. Actually it had already gotten under way in 330 when Constantine permitted Eusebius and Arius to return from exile. Eusebius and his followers at once went into action. Since they could not risk an open attack, they resorted to intrigues.
The technique adopted was very simple; it was used first of all on one who by now was their great enemy: Athanasius, the bishop of Alexandria. The technique consisted in managing somehow or other to place the orthodox bishop in disfavor, and then in installing an Arian bishop in his see, once he had been exiled. The case of Athanasius was a pattern of many to follow.
St. Athanasius had attended the Council of Nicea as a deacon and secretary to the old bishop of Alexandria who had first of all condemned Arius. By 328, however, Athanasius had succeeded the older man as head of the church at Alexandria. Upon his return from exile, Eusebius first directed his attention to Athanasius, managing to maneuver him into disfavor with Constantine. As a result, in 335 Athanasius was sent into exile by the Emperor.
With Athanasius out of the way, and Eusebius back in power with Constantine as his special patron, it seemed sure that the Arians - or the Eusebians, as they are also known - were sure to triumph. One thing still remained undone: Arius himself had not yet been received back into the Church, although recalled from exile. Constantine finally decreed that this be done by the bishop of Constantinople (since public resentment still made it impossible at Alexandria). At that very moment, however, Arius died (336), and soon afterward Constantine also passed on. The triumph was incomplete.
When the sons of Constantine took over the rule of the empire, Athanasius was allowed to return; thus the two opponents were free to carry on the dispute. The battle continued mostly by way of intrigue, however. Of the two remaining sons of Constantine, Constans was a baptized Catholic, while Constan-tius II favored Eusebius. Constans was not a particularly healthy man, but he was the more powerful of the two. As a result, until his death in 350, his presence warded off any Arian attack on the West and at least limited greatly any violence in the East.
After the death of Constantine the Great, however, the conflict had become increasingly evident. Eusebius had soon managed to have himself appointed bishop of Constantinople. It was an office of tremendous importance, and it placed him in a position to do much to further the Arian interests.
The technique continued, then, of attempting to fill the various dioceses with Arian bishops. The first big attempt was to replace the recently returned Athanasius with an Arian bishop in Alexandria. To this was added a second technique, one that was to become even more important in later years. It consisted of inserting synonyms into the decrees of the Councils, thus giving them a completely different meaning but with very little outward change in wording.
There were also appeals to Rome from both sides, a number of local synods, and threatening statements on the part of the Emperor. The whole Christian world seemed torn in doctrinal conflict. Today, historians will place descriptive tags on various groups - a practice complicated by the Greek words used for this purpose. The names are based on the solution the group proposed. Four large groups can be distinguished, one Catholic and three Arian:
1. The Homo-ousions, led by Athanasius, who insisted on the full meaning of Nicea: Christ is of the one and same substance as the Father.
2. The Anomoeans. These were a group of Arians who, after
Nicea, came out into the open and clearly stated in express terms what others had said more indirectly. They claimed, therefore, that the Word (the Logos) was entirely unlike the Father. Hence the name, from the Greek word a-homoios. The a stands for "not"; and the adjective homoios means "like." Thus the Word is "not like" the Father. They represent the teaching that is exactly the opposite of that of Nicea. (They are also called Eunomeans from the name of one of their leaders, Eunomius.)
3. The Homoeans. This group is named by using only the Greek adjective homoios (which means "like" or "similar"). They were a vague group who hoped that the entire debate could be solved by side-stepping the issue. They proposed that we hold that the Word was "like" the Father, dropping the ousia (substance) of Nicea entirely. In this way, a type of compromise peace would result; the Arians could understand the phrase in their own way, the Catholics in theirs. Since their motives in suggesting this are recognized as more political than doctrinal, they are also known as the Politicals.
4. The Homoi-ousions. This was the largest of all the Arian groups after Nicea; they are generally known today as the Semi-Arians. Their solution involved a departure from Nicea, but they attempted to make the change as easy as possible. All they did was change the adjective homos (the "same") to homoios ("like" or "similar"). They added it, however, to the ousia ("substance") used at Nicea. In this way, there was little change. The homo-ousion of Nicea became simply homoi-ousion. The only apparent difference was this extra "i" (a iota in the Greek alphabet). But the meaning was completely changed. If the Logos was only "similar" in substance, He would still not be true God.
These many divisions resulted in great confusion on all sides. Smaller councils or synods were held at various places, but none of them came up with a lasting solution. Pope Liberius (352-366) had suggested a Council, for example, and the Emperor Constantius agreed, but whatever meetings were held only ended in even greater confusion. At some of them the Arians turned to strong-arm tactics; the decrees issued were simply heretical. Meeting after meeting ended in this fashion. About the most noteworthy result in each case was either sending St. Athanasius into exile or recalling him - depending upon which party won the upper hand. Athanasius was, by now, the leading defender of the faith of Nicea; hence his importance as a symbol of the entire debate.
The whole question now centered about the Nicean Creed: Should it be accepted or not? At one gathering at Milan the Arian bishops became so enraged that they dragged the pen from the hand of the bishop of Milan as he was about to sign the Creed; a veritable riot resulted. The Emperor finally intervened and forced the bishops to condemn Athanasius, to reject Nicea, and receive the Arians into full union in the Church!
In the midst of this seemingly endless confusion, even Pope Liberius was tricked into a difficult position. He still remains one of the most discussed men of the period. Liberius continued to insist upon a free Council, but his wishes were not heeded. Instead, there came forth from Sirmium (the villa of the imperial court) one formula after another, more or less Arian in tone. The first such formula had passed over the word homo-ousion entirely; the second was an obvious Arian decree, an open denial of Nicea; and the third was something of a compromise, but, understood in proper fashion, it could be viewed as in agreement with Nicea.
The signature of Liberius was needed, of course, to give real force to these formulas, and to this day historians debate whether Liberius signed any of the formulas, and if so which one he did sign. Whatever did take place, it is certain enough that Liberius was, in point of fact, a stanch defender of Nicea (and also of
Athanasius, which then meant the same thing). If he signed any, it would seem that it was the third formula, which admits of a proper interpretation; if he signed the second, however, it is clear from his other actions that he was tricked into it.
In any event, it raises no special problem in regard to papal infallibility, since Liberius never clearly issued a solemn statement on his own authority. He preferred to continue demanding a free Council, with no interference from the Emperor. For this he was rewarded with exile himself! Liberius was kidnaped by night at the order of the Emperor and carried off to the imperial court. It seemed as though the Arians were in complete control. Those bishops who refused to condemn Athanasius were removed from their sees; even the Pope was now held captive.
Nothing was settled, however, since the group in favor with the Emperor changed from the Semi-Arians to the Anomoeans to the Politicals and back again. Things continued in this manner until Constantius died in 361. The immediate successors of Constantius came and went rapidly. In 379, Theodosius became the emperor in the East, and out of all this confusion rose the first Council of Constantinople (381).
By this time, Athanasius had died (373) and the leadership of the Catholic party had passed first to St. Basil and then to St. Gregory Nazianzen. Yet when Theodosius came to power, the Arians dominated everywhere in the East, especially at Constantinople; the orthodox believers in that city had neither bishop nor church. The new Emperor, however, was a devout Catholic and he wished to change all that. He decided, therefore, to restore the Catholics to power and to expel the Arians. To secure a lasting peace, he finally convoked the free Council that had been sought twenty or thirty years before by Pope Liberius. In this way the State broke officially with Arianism, and for the first time in years expressed in a clear fashion its acceptance of the Nicean faith.
Of all the General Councils, I Constantinople is, for a number of reasons, one of the most perplexing. Considering the futile attempts of the past, it did not seem that this Council would effect much more than these earlier gatherings had done; nevertheless it did, and the power of the Holy Spirit triumphed. It is unique in the history of the Councils. From all appearances, only the bishops of the East were invited. About 186 bishops took part, but not a single one from the west. Despite the frequent requests of Pope Liberius and his successors for a free Council, it seems that now not even Pope Damasus (366-384) was contacted in regard to this gathering; he did not take part in the proceedings, not even through his legates. We would have to conclude, in fact, that the Council was formally "convoked" by the Roman Pontiff at a much later date; history is silent on any approval given by Damasus I. In the sixth century, however, I Constantinople is listed in the papal decrees among the other General Councils of the fourth and fifth centuries.
We have very little information concerning what took place at this Council. It opened in May of 381; it most probably closed in July of that year. There were in all three men who presided over the sessions: Meletius, Gregory of Nazianzen, and finally Nectarius. One of the first tasks was the election of a new bishop of Constantinople; the Arian bishop chose to leave the city rather than comply. For this office St. Gregory Nazianzen was chosen.
The bishops then turned to the doctrinal questions of Arianism. About thirty-six Arian bishops had accepted the invitation to attend the Council, but, since they all refused to accept the Nicean Creed, they had left the city before the Council began. The bishops were especially concerned with a group of Semi-Arians who had fallen into error in regard to the Holy Spirit; this new error had to be condemned as well. Just as the Arians had claimed that the Word was only a creature and not God, so these Semi-Arians stated the same thing about the Holy Spirit. They are called Macedonians from one of their chief leaders, Macedoriius (who had been the bishop of Constantinople about twenty years earlier).
When the thirty-six Arian bishops left the city, the remaining 150 went on to reaffirm the faith of Nicea. After all these years of dispute, they simply repeated the homo-ousion of Nicea, adding nothing more. The formula they issued seems to have been a Jerusalem Creed, completed by the formula of Nicea; the Council simply made this formula its own. Because of the teaching of the Macedonians, this Creed includes a more definite statement concerning the Catholic belief in the Holy Spirit: "We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the Giver of life; he proceeds from the Father, is adored and honored together with the Father and the Son; he spoke through the prophets." With certain smaller changes, it is this Creed that we recite in the liturgy of the Mass today.
In this way, the doctrinal quarrel was finally settled; the faith of Nicea on this point was once again secure. New troubles would arise, but they would be of a slightly different nature. One source of difficulty, however, was created by the third canon formulated by I Constantinople: "The bishop of Constantinople shall hold the first rank after the bishop of Rome, because Constantinople is New Rome." In this lay the seeds of discord and political unrest that would eventually lead to the great schism of the Eastern Churches. But that is another story, to which we must return later on; there are other doctrinal problems that must be treated first.